This study examined the effects of sub-goals on motor task performance, and the relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion. 40 college students performed sit-ups over 6 weeks with sub-goals set at 20%, 40%, and 60% improvements from their baseline over 2 week periods. 24 subjects completed the study. Results showed significant improvements in sit-up performance over time, with 61% of participants achieving their 60% improvement goal within 4 weeks. Perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion both decreased significantly over time. A positive correlation was found between perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion. The results support that setting sub-goals can improve motor task performance and that perceived goal difficulty reflects the effort required to achieve

1. Effect of Perceived Goal Difficulty, Perceived Exercise Exertion and Sub-Goal
on Selected Motor Task
Ms.Meenakshi, Assistant Professor, IGIPESS, Delhi University
Dr. Lalit Sharma,Associate Professor, IGIPESS, Delhi University
Dr. Ajit,Assistant Professor, ASPESS, Amity University
Abstract
The aim of the study was to analyze the effect of sub-goals on selected motor task,
and tofind out the relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived
exercise exertionA total of 40 subjects between the age group of 17 to 23 were
assigned the sub goals to achieve the target goal within 6 weeks in which only 24
subjects completed the study.Results of one way ANOVA with repeated measures
revealed that the subjects significantly improved their selected motor task
performance in which 61 % of the participantsachieved their target within four
weeks.Significantpositive relationship between perceived goal difficulty and
perceived exercise exertion was found. Improvement in performance supports the
findings thatsetting goals improves performance in sport. Perceived goal difficulty
reflects mainly the amount of effort that subjects have to invest in the task to
achieve given target.
Keywords: goals, perception, motivation,

2. Introduction
Psychological techniques have been an effective tool for enhancing performance and
productivity, and has been found effective in improving long-term self-motivation through
eliciting commitment, perseverance, dedication and effort (Locke & Latham, 1990).Goal is
defined as an object, aim or endpoint of action, which an individual describes as an
accomplishment being sought provide focus and direction of one's activity, and permit the
individual to continuously measure performance through internal processes of comparison, using
subjective standards to evaluate ongoing pursuits (Frierman, Weinberg &Jackson, 1990; Locke
& Bryan, 1969). Many sport-psychologists influenced by Locke and Latham's (1966, 1985)
model based on conscious goals and intentions used the goal setting as a motivational strategies
in the domain of sports and exercise as performance effect of goal setting are at least similar to,
if not more effective in sports than in organizational-industrial setting, and recommend
performers to strive for difficult and challenging, yet realistic and attainable goals. Realistic
challenging goals are considered motivationally superior to the use of unrealistic goals because
goals that are unreachable will result in continuing failure. This, in turn, would lead to a drop in
motivation and the subsequent performance would also deteriorate. In essence, reported failure
could lead to a condition of learned helplessness (Maier & Seligman, 1976 cited by Bar-Eli et al.,
1993) in which the individual simply gives up trying to improve.Senko, Harackiewicz (2005)
&Lazarus, (1991), in the domain of motor performance, have identified perceived goal difficulty
as an important variable in the regulation of emotions and motivation. Nevertheless, little
research has focused specifically on the understanding of the true nature of perceived goal
difficulty.

3. Much research in the area of goal-setting, in particular in industrial or organizational
settings, has shown a positive influence of goal difficulty on performance: the more difficult the
goals, the higher the performances (Mooney & Mutrie , 2000). Accordingto Locke (1966)the
assignment of difficult goals leads to a greater investment of effort and a better persistence, as
effort is provided until the goal or the sub-goal is reached (LaPort&Nath, 1976; Latham &
Locke, 1975). The cognitive theories of motivation offer an interesting frame to analyse the
relationships between goals, effort and persistence (Nuttin, 1980, cited byDelignieres, 1998): the
subject persists in his or her effort as long as he or she perceives a discrepancy between the goal
and the actual outcome. Goal-setting allows this discrepancy to be created and structured. The
theory suggests, at least within certain limits which have to be determined, that invested effort,
and hence performance, are proportional to subjective difficulty. The monotonous relationship
between goal difficulty and performance is valid only if the assigned goal isrealistic: if subject is
to assess the task as too difficult, he or she stops investing effort (Locke and Latham 1985). As
well,the amount of effort is limited by a subjective maximum (Kukla, 1972).
In light of the published and unpublished studies concluded in the field settings, the key
study sought to understand how goal setting manifests in sports by undertaking a laboratory-
based test in which abdominal strength was measured by the number of sit-ups.
Therefore the following objectives were set in the study:
To study the effect of sub-goals on selected motor task.
To know the Inter-relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise
exertion (LaPort&Nath, 1976; Latham & Locke, 1975).
Method
Participants

4. For the purpose of the present study a total number of 40 college studentsfrom the Indira
Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Sciences who have voluntarily accepted to be
a part of this study selected as subjects.We assigned the sub goals to forty subjects to achieve the
target goal within 6 weeks in which only 24 subjects completed the study. Younger adults (Mage=
19years, age range: 17-23 years)were selected as subjects for the study.
Criterion Measures
The following criterion measure was used for the present study.
Self-developed Perceived goal difficulty scale was used to know the perceived goal difficulty for
the assigned goal. The scale is composed of 10 points numbered from 1 to 10. Every two points
were associated with verbal label ranging from “not difficult at all (1)” to “very very difficult”
(10).
Perceived exercise exertion scale established by Borg (1970) was used. This scale is
composed of 10 points, numbered from 1 to 10, and is anchored all two points with verbal labels,
from "not tired at all (1)," to "very, very tired" (10). This scale is constructed to produce a linear
relationship between objective and perceived exercise exertion.
Procedure for Goal Setting
Initially we assembled and informed all the subjects about the study. For three days they
were asked to perform sit ups in one time under “do your best” instructions and calculated
average of three days scores in order to obtain baseline measure of performance.Once the
baseline performance was obtained, a goal of 60 % improvement of baseline was set for the
participants.
Administration of Training Schedule

5. Once the initial goal was set, all the subjects were assembled and asked to practice sit-ups
for three set with the target goal of 20 % improvement of baseline for the first two weeks.In the
3rd
week they were asked to practice sit-ups for three sets with the target goal of 40 %
improvement of baseline for next two weeks. Again in the 5th
week for two weeks 3 sets with
the target goal of 60 % improvement were practiced by the subjects under the supervision of the
researcher. The training was carried out for three days in a week in Indira Gandhi Institute of
Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Delhi University.
Performance Scores
A total of three times performance data were collected from all the subjects. The first trial
was a pretest used to obtain a basal (maximum) performance and to determine the initial
abdominal strength. The subjects then performed a first experimental trial after two weeks in
which they were asked to perform the sit-ups in one time. The total number of sit-ups was
considered as the performance scores after two weeks. After four weeks, the participants again
performed the second experimental trials in which they were asked to perform the sit-ups exactly
in a mannerthey had earlier performed after two weeks.Finally after the six weeks of training the
data was collected.
Administration of the Questionnaire
Once subjects had been assigned their goals, they were asked to complete a pre
experimental questionnaire to determine perceived goal difficulty. Participants were asked to
complete post experimental questionnaire to know the changes in perceived goal difficulty over
the weeks. They were also asked to complete a pre experimental questionnaire to determine
perceived exercise exertion. Participants were asked to complete post experimental questionnaire
to know the changes in perceived exercise exertion over the weeks. Since the task was

6. completed followed by six weeks training,subjectswere notgiven perceived goal difficulty and
perceived exercise questionnairein the sixth week, therefore for the perceived goal difficulty and
perceived exertion, the data was collected only until 4th
week.
Statistical Analysis
For the analysis of the data descriptive statistics were employed on pretest and every
experimental data. The one way ANOVA with repeated measure test was computed to find out
the change in each trial of performance for goal attainment, perceived exercise exertion and
perceive goal difficulty during the training. Pearson product moment correlation was computed
to find out the relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion.
The chi-square, test of independence was used to know whether the achievement of target was
independent to gender.The level of significance was set at .05 levels.
Results
Changes in the performance as well as in the perceived goal difficulty and perceived
exercise exertion were analyzed and the findings are presented in table 1 and table 2.
Relationship was computed between the perceived exercise exertion and perceived goal
difficulty and the findings are presented in table 3.
Table 1
Performance Means for Selected Motor Task (Sit-Ups)
Trials Performance PEE PGD
M SD M SD M SD
Pre (Trial 1) 60.17 19.71 2.74 1.48 3.37 1.88
After 2 weeks (Trial 2) 80.67 25.28 2.65 2.12 2.83 2.37
After 4weeks (Trial 3) 91.08 30.86 2.22 1.98 2.04 1.76
After 6 weeks (Trial 4) 96.92 37.42
Note. PGD=Perceived Goal Difficulty. PEE= Perceived Exercise Exertion

7. Aone way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was employed to analyze
performance data.A significant trials effect,F (3, 69) = 29.16, p< .01, was found with participants
performing significantly better on second trial (M = 80.67) than on first trial (M = 60.17).
Subjects performed significantly better on third trial (M = 91.08) than on first (M = 60.17) and
second trial (80.67) respectively, whereas not performed significantly better in fourth trial
(96.92) than on the third trial (M=91.08).
Figure 1: Means and SD of selected motor task (sit-ups).
One way ANOVA with repeated measuresstatistics analyzed the perceived goal difficulty
and indicated significant differences among trials, F (2, 46) = 4.67, p < .05. LSD post-hoc
analysis revealed the perceived goal difficulty not reduced significantly on the second trial (M=
2.83) than on first trial (M= 3.37) whereas significantly reduced on third trial (M =2.04)than on
the second trial (M= 2.83).
One way ANOVA with repeated measures of the results from the perceived exercise
exertion questionnaire indicated no significant difference on the perceived exercise exertion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 1 2 3 4
performance
trials
Performance Mean
Performance SD
Linear (Performance
Mean)
Linear (Performance
SD)

8. among trails (M=2.74). Therefore it may be concluded that participants required same
investment of effort from the beginning to the end to achieve the target.
Table 2
Percentage of Participants Achieved Their Target
Participants Target achieved Target not achieved
Total 61 % 39 %
Male 52% 48%
Female 100 % 0 %
Table 2 reveals that 61 % (N = 28) of the participants had achieved their target within
four weeks. Percentage of achievement of target did differ by gender, x2
(1, N=28) = 3.99,
p<.05.Chi-square test of independence indicates that achievement of target was related to gender.
100 % female subjects achieved the target whereas only 52 % of male achieved their target in
given period.
Table 3
Inter-Correlations among Perceived Goal Difficulty and Perceived Exercise Exertion on
Selected Motor Task over the Weeks
PGD on 1st
trial PGD on 2nd
trial PGD on 3rd
trial
PEE on 1st
trial .51**
PEE on 2nd
trial .94**
PEE on 3rd
trial .89**

9. Note. PGD=Perceived Goal Difficulty. PEE= Perceived Exercise Exertion
** p< .01.
Table 3 indicated that matrixcorrelation coefficients for the perceived goal difficulty and
perceived exercise exertion on selected motor task over the weeks revealed that perceived goal
difficulty on 1st
trialwas strongly and positively correlated with perceived exercise exertion on 1st
trial followed by, 2nd
and 3rd
trial with 2nd
and 3rd
trial respectively (r=.51, .94
and.89respectively). Results confirm that perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise
exertion are related constructs.
Discussion
61 % of the participants achieved their target and Performance results in this study did
show some consistency with previous literature governing goal-setting and sports.Improvement
in performance supports the findings given byKyllo& Landers, (1995) thatoverall, setting goals
improves performance in sport. On the other hand the participants those who had not achieved
their target could be attributed to the fact they might not have given their optimum efforts.
Another reason could be that the subjects were not committed to the work assigned, theremay be
lack of motivation to accomplish the task as researcher had not used any motivational technique.
Sub-goals was influencing factor for females than males as more number of females
achieved their target in a given period of time than the males at an equivalent level of perceived
goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion supports the findings given byWeinberg (2003)
that females set goals more frequently and found their goals more effective than males.
Sub-goals significantly reduced the participants perceived goal difficulty over the weeks
and also found that participants perceived their target neither very easy nor very difficult but
realistic.Theresults of perceived goal difficulty are in line with both the goal specificity and goal

10. difficulty hypotheses derived from the application of Locke’s goal-setting theory to sport that
goal difficulty has a direct relationship with performance and shown that more difficult goals
lead to a higher performance, as long as the goals do not become so difficult that athletes
perceive them as impossible. Unreasonable goals frustrate, rather than motivate athletes. On the
other hand difficult but realistic goals lead to increase performance and motivation.
Participants perceived moderate level of exertion and no significant changes were found
in perceived exercise exertion over the weeks, therefore it may be concluded that they perceived
their exercise of same intensity over the weeks and they reported same investment of effort from
the beginning to the end to achieve the target which supports the findings that if the subject was
to estimate the goal as easy, then he or she would think that little effort was necessary to reach
the goal and vise-versa.
Correlation between perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion on selected
motor task supports the findings from the sports psychology literature that participants who
perceive their goal as difficult reflects the amount of effort which have been invested in the task.
Assignment of difficult goals lead to a greater investment of effort (Locke, 1966) and a better
persistence, as effort is provided until the goal or the sub-goal is reached. (Laport&Nath, 1976;
Latham & Locke, 1975).
Conclusions
There is significant positive relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived
exercise exertion on selected motor task. Perceived goal difficulty reflects the amount of
effort that subjects have to invest in the task to reach a given level of performance.
No significant changes were found on perceived exercise exertion among trials.
Significant changes were taken place on perceived goal difficulty among trials.

11. Significant improvement were observed in the performance on the trials except on fourth
trial in which 61 % of the selected participants had achieved their target within 4 weeks
and then no improvement was observed in last trial.
Gender difference was observed on target achievement in which more females achieved
their target in a given period of time than the males at an equivalent level of perceived
goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion.
Research Implications
It is suggested that perceived goal difficulty was a reliable index, which could be used in
experimental protocols as well as in teaching or training situations to manage the
difficulty of task that have already been assessed as goal difficulty by subjects.
As perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion are the same constructs so
coaches, trainers or teachers may use perceived goal difficulty as an index of the amount
of effort that subjects intends to invest on the task for attaining the goal.
Gender difference may be taken into consideration while setting the goals.
References
Botterill, M., &Stanicek, J. A. (1977).Goal setting and performance on an endurance task. Paper
presented at the Canadian Psycho Motor Learning and Sport Psychology Conference,
Banff, Alberta.
Bar-Eli, Michael, Levy-Kolker, Noa, Tenenbaum, Gershon, Weinberg, Robert S. (1993,
March).Effect of goal difficulty on performance of aerobic, anaerobic and power tasks in
laboratory and field settings.Journal of Sport Behavior, 16 (1).
Delignières, D. (1998). Perceived Difficulty and Resources Investment in Motor Tasks.
European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 2, 33-54.

12. Kukla, A. (1972). Foundations of an attributional theory of performance.Psychological Review,
79, 454-470.
LaPort, R.E. &Nath, R. (1976).Role of performance goals in prose learning.Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68, 260-264.
Latham G.P. & Locke, E.A.(1975).Increasing productivity with decreasing time limits; a field
replication of Parkinson’s Law.Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 524-526.
Locke, A., & Latham , G. P. (1995). The Application of Goal Setting to Sports. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 7(3).
Locke, E.A. (1966). The relationship of intentions to level of performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 50, 60-66.
Locke, E.A Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., (1969). Goal setting as a determinant of the effect of knowledge of score and
performance.American Journal of Psychology, 81, 398-406.
Retrieved February 3, 2012,
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/256014?uid=3738256&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70
&uid=4&sid=56139481403
Reference for Business, Encyclopedia of Business, (Ed.) retrieved December 12, 2011, from
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Ex-Gov/Goals-and-Goal-
Setting.html#b